On 3/21/06, Fastfission <fastfission(a)gmail.com> wrote:
abnormality. An expert on brains though would know
that superficial
analysis like this, relying only on two images at that (there are many
types of "normal"), is practically worthless, and certainly that
someone without training in neuroscience is not qualified to even make
sense of such images. The anthropologist calls this sort of evidence
"expert images," in that they give one the impression of being an
expert, though real experts find them unclear and contestable. Anyway,
I bring this up as just an analogy -- I think primary sources often
serve as "expert sources" or something along those lines for Wikipedia
users, which is why I am so cautious about people using them.
This is one of the scarier things about juries. I saw a documentary
once that detailed a real murder case with expert evidence to do with
DNA testing (and various other sorts) some remains after a couple of
years. Members of the jury were interviewed afterwards, and made
remarks like "oh, I didn't see how the evidence could have lasted that
long"...even though the expert witness had just been telling them that
it could.
All of which is to say that in Wikipedia we shouldn't ever be
attempting to determine the actual worth of something prima facie -
instead, we should only be including the comments of experts.
Steve
If we stick with secondary sources, then we dodge the problem
alltogether. Furthermore, if Wikipedia cites a secondary source, it
will never be "wrong" (viz. Nature) in a factual sense -- our greatest
sin would then be one of picking the wrong sources or giving too much
attention to marginal ones (which is a real question in and of itself,
of course).
FF
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l